Canon Lens Choices - DPChallenge Forums

09/01/2008 05:05:48 PM · #1

I need advice on possibly two lens decisions...

I recently acquired the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ( a deal I couldn't pass up: free ) and I already have the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, so I am tempted to get rid of one or the other because having both seems slightly redundant. My use of either would be primarily small (tight space) studio portraits and occasional landscape or architectural shots. Which should I keep and why?

If I got rid of one of the wide angles, it would be to purchase the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS or the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, but that would leave me thinking about getting rid of my Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Assuming I get rid of one of the WA's above, my choices as I see them:
- Get the 24-70 and keep the 28-135 (although I do have the 70-300 IS USM, so maybe get rid of the 28-135 anyway?)
- Sell the 28-135 and get the 24-105

I'm looking for quality coverage from super-wide to 300mm in my lenses, but also the best coverage when I do manage to get out to shoot, with a maximum of 2 lenses in my bag.

Any and all advice is much appreciated!

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/01/2008 05:23:44 PM · #2

Unless you're planning to get a full frame camera in the very near future, I'd sell the 28-135 and get the 10-22 and 24-105. That'll give you great quality glass from the equivalent of 16-168mm with no overlap.

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

09/01/2008 05:27:47 PM · #3

Thanks Shannon - I already have the 10-22, so you're saying sell the 16-35L, keep the 10-22 and sell the 28-135 and get the 24-105?

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

09/01/2008 05:31:38 PM · #4

Hey Art. the 2 lenses I will always go out with is my 24-105 and the 70-200 and I also try to sneak the 2X adapter in my pants too.. works great with a FF camera. The 16-35 is a very nice lens and I bags first dibbs if you decide to sell it (kinda joking but not joking)

the 24-105 is on my Camera more than any other to be honest, L quality and IS too at constant f4 is good enough for me most of the day.

I cannot think about the 10-22, never used one but all I hear about it is very good indeed and can only imagine paired with the 24-105 would be very nice kit.

Happy shopping mate

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/01/2008 05:36:25 PM · #5

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

so you're saying sell the 16-35L, keep the 10-22 and sell the 28-135 and get the 24-105?

Yup. I have a 17-40 at the office and wouldn't even consider that one for wide angle now that I have the 10-22. I've got a 24-105 ordered and in transit to my sweaty palms. For general purpose, you KNOW the 24-105 will live on your camera. Are you really going to keep the 16-35 around for 8mm of range? Of course if you ever go FF, you'd be a fool to get rid of the 16-35...

Message edited by author 2008-09-01 17:37:04.

09/01/2008 05:49:52 PM · #6

I think it will be awhile before I go FF. Thanks again, Shannon!

Originally posted by MAK:

I also try to sneak the 2X adapter in my pants too..

Let's leave your sexual trickery out of the discussion, Marac. :P

Thanks to you as well. I might just give you first dibs on the 16-35 if I can make it all work out.

Any other input is still welcome if anyone has anything to add for the benefit of myself and all who read this.

09/01/2008 05:57:43 PM · #7

...so, nobody saying: "Get the 24-70 for the wider aperture (2.8) and just keep the 28-135 for the range" ??

LVicari

Canon EOS-50D

09/01/2008 06:03:50 PM · #8

If you get rid of the 10-22 let me know. How much? I would be interested that is if all the stars and moons align.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/01/2008 06:03:57 PM · #9

10-22 is fantastic. I guess the only reason to keep the 16-35 is if you are planning on a FF body as has already been pointed out.. Sell the 16-35 and buy the 24-105, I doubt you will miss the 30mm of reach, that you currently have. I replaced my 28-135 with the 24-70, obviously a great lens, but would have preferred the extra reach. I just can't seem to part with it.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/01/2008 06:05:03 PM · #10

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

...so, nobody saying: "Get the 24-70 for the wider aperture (2.8) and just keep the 28-135 for the range" ??

I've never been satisfied with the 28-135 once I purchased the 24-70.

Ecce_Signum

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/01/2008 06:06:28 PM · #11

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

...so, nobody saying: "Get the 24-70 for the wider aperture (2.8) and just keep the 28-135 for the range" ??

Ditch these...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

and get these...

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM *edited to say, ok, you have it already*
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (or maybe the F/4)

Supplement them with a nice fisheye and 1.4 Extender - sorted :)

Oh, and get a few woodies to practice with lol.

Or, stick with what you have - still sorted ;)

Message edited by author 2008-09-01 18:07:46.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/01/2008 06:15:14 PM · #12

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

Oh, and get a few woodies to practice with lol.

Or, stick with what you have - still sorted ;)

With Woodies in the list, I think Sordid is the correct spelling. ;-)

Ecce_Signum

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/01/2008 06:18:12 PM · #13

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Oh, and get a few woodies to practice with lol.

Or, stick with what you have - still sorted ;)

With Woodies in the list, I think Sordid is the correct spelling. ;-)

Come to think about it, with Art in the list sordid generaly springs to mind ;)

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

09/01/2008 06:24:20 PM · #14

here we go...

10-22
24-105
70-200 f2.8 or f4.0 IS or not all EXCELLENT lenses ( the f4.0 with IS is quite well priced and very very sharp)

2X or 1.4X an option

The 28-135 I found with my copy, was not very sharp a lens at all and I would definately say the 24-105 is MIIIIIIIILES BETTER!

roba

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/01/2008 06:39:33 PM · #15

Originally posted by MAK:

That's exactly my current line-up: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200(2.8 IS) - and like MAK, the 2x.

I rarely ever find myself thinking "I wish I had a different lens" (except for reach - and then I hit our local lens Mecca for the 500/4 IS for a days rental).
Personally, I couldn't do without the 10-22. It opens up a completely different world (try using it as a walk-around lens). My 28-135 was pretty good, but eventually ended up with a sticky zoom ring that drove me insane.

Ecce_Signum

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/01/2008 06:47:48 PM · #16

Almost the same minds guys, the only reason I went for the 24-70 over the 24-105 is because thats what I own and, like Art mentioned its 2,8 through and through ;)

And, I use the (Canon)1.4X often on the 70-200 but find the (Sigma) 2X leaves me with less keepers :(

Originally posted by roba:

Originally posted by MAK:
here we go...

10-22
24-105
70-200 f2.8 or f4.0 IS or not all EXCELLENT lenses ( the f4.0 with IS is quite well priced and very very sharp)

2X or 1.4X an option

The 28-135 I found with my copy, was not very sharp a lens at all and I would definately say the 24-105 is MIIIIIIIILES BETTER!

That's exactly my current line-up: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200(2.8 IS) - and like MAK, the 2x.

I rarely ever find myself thinking "I wish I had a different lens" (except for reach - and then I hit our local lens Mecca for the 500/4 IS for a days rental).
Personally, I couldn't do without the 10-22. It opens up a completely different world (try using it as a walk-around lens). My 28-135 was pretty good, but eventually ended up with a sticky zoom ring that drove me insane.

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

09/01/2008 07:13:46 PM · #17

Alright! Now we're getting somewhere.

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ( ~ $1060 )
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (f2.8, but no IS for $140 more)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $1700
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM $1200
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM $1100

Total Cost for 2 new lenses: $2160 - $2900

In order to pay for it, I need to get rid of:
16-35 f2.8L ( ~ ~~$1200~~ ? ) edit: wishful thinking. ;-)
28-135 f3.5-4.5 ( ~ $375 ? )
75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM (~ $400 ? )

Total from sale of existing lenses potentially close to $2k, so I would have to go with the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4. I really have to do this with as little out of pocket as possible.

How do the sale prices look on the lenses I would get rid of?

Message edited by author 2008-09-02 02:56:10.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

09/01/2008 07:29:21 PM · #18

Hey Art, the 16-35 I can get here in UK for a lot less used so If you can sell it for that please go ahead. I understand you need to fund your new purchase mate so I wish you all the best. I'm sure you will sell them no probs your stuff is always in great condition, the 50mm I got from you was almost brand new.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

09/01/2008 07:50:54 PM · #19

Originally posted by MAK:

Hey Art, the 16-35 I can get here in UK for a lot less used so If you can sell it for that please go ahead.

Thanks, Marac - I'm checking around ebay for pricing - I can see that I may have to bring that down a bit. I may give it a shot on ebay first with a fairly high reserve, failing that, maybe a quick-sell price on DPC and I might have to hang on to my 75-300 and forego the 70-200L for now.

I'm still a little torn between the 24-70 and the 24-105. 2.8 non-IS vs. 4.0 with IS and longer reach and a little less expensive.... leaning toward the 24-105... leaning more... falling over......... ok, the 24-105 is my choice for the combination of price and versatility.

slickchik

OM System OM-1

09/01/2008 09:37:00 PM · #20

I chose the 24-105 because of the longer reach and also because it is lighter and smaller than the 24-70.

You have a good plan for your lenses:
10-22
24-105
70-200 f/4

I'd totally recommend these.

Nuzzer

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

09/01/2008 11:33:12 PM · #21

Originally posted by slickchik:

I chose the 24-105 because of the longer reach and also because it is lighter and smaller than the 24-70.

You have a good plan for your lenses:
10-22
24-105
70-200 f/4

I'd totally recommend these.

These are the lenses I have - love them, especially the 24-105, it's on my camera 90% of the time

MattO

Nikon D4

09/01/2008 11:52:38 PM · #22

You want my thoughts,

look at my profile..............

Canon 16-35 F2.8
Canon 24-70 F2.8
Canon 70-200F2.8
Canon 300 F2.8
Canon 85 F1.8
Canon 135F2.0

IMHO there is no replacement for a fast lens. You can always stop a lens down if you have extra light, but you cant open up a lens that wont go faster then F4. Unless you are printing huge, 4MP is plenty from a good sharp file. I've got 20x30's from my 4MP 1D(some are even slight crops) and I'm pretty picky about what I offer to my customers. You can always zoom with your feet if you need and you can always swap a lens quickly. You cant always add light to what you are shooting.

On another note, I'd never shoot any portrait with the 10-22 Canon lens. That thing has so much distortion and has to be stopped down so far for sharpness corner to corner its unreal.(Yeah I'll hear from the haters) but its considered a landscape lens and even its best supporters tell you its going to need to go to F8 to get a sharp photo.

IN reality in photojournalism and other markets the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 is the standard kit.

MattO

your mileage may vary.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/01/2008 11:55:50 PM · #23

Another vote for 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8's. I think you'll regret selling that 16-35, especially if you find yourself reaching for your wallet someday to pick it up again...

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

09/02/2008 12:29:44 AM · #24

Originally posted by MattO:

On another note, I'd never shoot any portrait with the 10-22 Canon lens. That thing has so much distortion and has to be stopped down so far for sharpness corner to corner its unreal.(Yeah I'll hear from the haters) but its considered a landscape lens and even its best supporters tell you its going to need to go to F8 to get a sharp photo.

Normally I'd agree, but this one was taken with the 10-22.

Depending on the type of portrait, I wouldn't rule out any lens

Message edited by author 2008-09-02 00:30:41.

Retroesque